RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-cnam (IANA Registration for anEnumservice Calling Name Delivery (CNAM) Information and IANARegistration for URI type 'pstndata' URI type 'pstn') toProposed Standard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clive D.W. Feather [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:05 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Enum] Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-cnam (IANA 
> Registration for anEnumservice Calling Name Delivery (CNAM) 
> Information and IANARegistration for URI type 'pstndata' URI 
> type 'pstn') toProposed Standard
> 
> Hollenbeck, Scott said:
> >> * Why is there a need for a new URI type rather than just having a 
> >> data:
> >> URI with appropriate contents?
> > 
> > The data: URI was the original proposal.  The reviewing AD (Jon) 
> > mandated a change.  Apparently there is some desire within 
> the IESG to 
> > deprecate use of the data: URI.
> 
> Hmm. Can you point me at any documentation for this? [I've 
> been looking at the data: URI in other contexts.]

Rich had the exchange with Jon.  He'll have to provide that info.  Older
versions of the ID (available in the usual places) will confirm the
change over time, though.

> >> * What are the semantics of <telephone-subscriber> in a URI? 
> >> The examples in section 7 leave it completely confusing.
> > Section 11.2 describes where it came from.
> 
> That gives me the syntax. But why would I provide one? Why is 
> the caller name for +1 703 555 0100 tied to a URI mentioning 
> +1 505 212 1111? What is going on?

More for Rich et al.  I just devised the syntax. ;-)

> >> * I believe the 15 character limit may be a North American 
> one - has 
> >> anyone checked this specification against ETSI standards? 
> [Don't ask 
> >> me: I'm not familiar enough with them.]
> > That's not a North American limit.  It's described in ITU-T 
> spec E.164.
> 
> Um, aren't you confusing it with the 15 digit limit for 
> numbers (excluding the international access code)?

Could be.  I always thought that the text in section 5 was referring to
E.164's limit, but I could be wrong.

-Scott-